million an hour, or about what we pay in interest on our debt in about an hour. such a deal. that's showing them. vlad, just one question. does that include drinks or oxygen? >> hello, everyone. i'm eric bolling along with andrea tantaros, bob beckel, dana perino, and greg gutfield. it's 5:00 in new york city. this is "the five." there are breaking news on the malaysian airlines story. a prominent member of congress doesn't believe that the plane definitely crashed into the indian ocean. we'll dig deeper into that shortly. first, should employers be forced to cover birth control for their employees if it violated their religious beliefs. they took on the obamacare contraception mandate. on the one side, you have family-owned companies run by christians who object to covering certain methods of birth control that can work
after contraception. >> our family started hobby lobby built on our faith and together as a family. we've kept that tradition for more than 40 years. and we want to continue to live out our faith in the way we do business. the choice the government has forced on us is unfair. and not in keeping with the history of our great nation, founded on religious freedom. we're thankful that the supreme court took our case, and we prayerfully await the justice's decision. >> and on the other side, you have president obama, planned parenthood and the radical left demanding employers provide health care that covers all forms of contraception at no cost. >> it's not my boss's business whether i'm allowed access to birth control. it's about women's health. >> let it snow, we won't go. boss, my health can't wait. women must decide their fate.
birth control is here to stay. the people united will never be defeated. >> okay, folks. your first amendment right, your religious freedom, guaranteed to you by the constitution, hangs in the balance. let me go to dana, you first. let's talk about it. >> okay. >> what do we define here? is it corporation versus nonprofit, birth control, no birth control, religious freedom, where are we? >> it's one of those things we're grateful we have sasupreme court because you can have debates in the newspaper, at "the five," but it doesn't matter what we think. what matters is what the nine justices think. and they have a narrow case. the questions are basically this, does a business or a corporation have a standing to assert a religious claim under what was passed in 1993, the religious freedom restoration act. not about availability. it's about religious freedom restoration act. the question was the hhs mandate
under obamacare which exempted lots of other religious grj s nonprofits, everything but corporations, and is the government doing harm? the reports, the solicitor general did not make the sale to the justices. tough case, but i think eventually the hobby lobby people will win based on that narrow interpretation of the law. >> andrea, it feels like political ideology, ideology trumped small business, people who demand their own first amendment right to religious freedom. >> yeah, the progressives strike again, having no regard for the first amendment. this is exactly what the founding fathers didn't want. the government scrutinizing businesses, who's religious and who is not and telling them how to execute their faith. this is simpling. the u.s. constugz does not want them to pass laws interfering with people's religious rights,
period. what they're saying is this is the central argument of thestration, that for-profit companies like hobby lobby have no religious rights under the first amendment. that is the most asinine, bizarre, crazy assumption, and it only could come from the progressive wing of the left that has no regard for the first amendment or the u.s. constitution. if these people don't like it, they can go work somewhere else, but i actually think the court is going to rule in favor of hobby lobby. again, demonizing them for being a corporation making a profit, exercising their rights under the first amendment. that holds up in my opinion. >> dana and andrea point out something very important. there have been a lot of groups that have gone to the supreme court and asked to be not held under the law because of religious beliefs and the supreme court has said, no. for some reason, this one seems to be different because -- because of that profit motive. is the court now telling us what is right and wrong? >> it seems like political ideology is the one trumping the
constitution in the form of hobby lobby. the people who work for them, a corporation is not a person, and the idea, to cite what mitt romney said, the fact is people who work for this company may believe, they don't believe what the owners believe. they may want this. there's nowhere in the law that mandates the government pay for abortions or companies pay for abortions. it's about birth control. the idea that some people believe because they have religious beliefs, they ought to impose that on their employees while they're making a profit is ridiculous and un-american. >> it's so un-american that a business is making a profit and offering -- >> that's not what i had. >> they're offering 16 forms of contraception. they're saying they're denied contraception. no one is stopping you. please use birth control. after listening to you, i will pay for it. look, the country is divided right now. there's one side.
hobby lobby, they built 500 businesses, 16,000 employees. they actually make things. that's one part of america. on the other side, you have the agents of entitlement, bob. they target businesses. what you have is the american dream versus the american ream. the american dream is losing, unfortunately, to those loud mouths who are lying. nobody is stopping you from getting your pills. by the way, by the way, it doesn't kaunlsitute a burden if your boss isn't buying your pills. that's not a burden. your lack of happiness is not a burden. you -- if you have a problem buying these pills but you can buy everything else, the problem is on you. >> let me go out on a limb. i assume for a second that the owner, that woman -- >> terrible woman, right, bob? >> i was embarrassed by some people on my side, but leaving that aside, i would bet she doesn't like homosexuality, too. >> how do you know that? >> i think i can make that
assumption. >> you don't think you can be for gay marriage and think abortion is wrong? >> let's assume they don't like gay marriage. >> that's bob's position. >> can i finish, please? if they didn't want to pay for hiv drugs because they weren't in favor of gays, what would you do then? >> that will be a question then. >> that is not the case in front of the supreme court. deal with the case in front of them right now. the court will handle that case. >> i see no difference. >> do they say that? they don't. >> it's a government mandating the purchase by the company for the employer on hiv drugs. if that's the case, perhaps maybe one day you could have a case like this, but this also, i think, turns on something else, which as you said, bob, corporations are not a person. actually, supreme court justice asked the solicitor general about that and he said there have been no cases holding a corporation can bring a claim under this act and there's no claim saying they cannot. that is something that will be asked. as a religious nonprofit, why
should they get an exemption and not the corporation? >> they're in the business of promoting religion, which is something the constitution -- -- >> doesn't hobby lobby become a nonprofit. >> they're promoting profit for themselves. >> that's terrible, profit for their 60,000 employees. >> i'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. >> are there no nonprofits that make a profit? >> pardon me? a lot of nonprofits are in the business of making profits as well, if they're on the right side of the aisle, they're okay. >> not the profit hobby lobby are paying their taxes, supporting all these people who are bringing these actions. >> can i make another point? i guarantee you 99% of the people talking about this issue right now have never heard of hobby lobby. and what you see is a media that turns this into a target of mockery, that hobby lobby will become a punch line, a religious punch line like chick fill a rr
because they deny women's right to pills. >> go for it. remember what happened to chick fill a after the hub bub? maybe people come out in force in favor of hobby lobby. >> surprise, surprise, "new york times" frames the debate this way. check out the hide line. the supreme court on tuesday, today, will hear arguments in a case that pits religious liberty against women's rights. really, time? is that a fair and balanced headline? about women's rights or liberal ideology crushing religious freedom? we report, you decide. >> i hate to break it to the "new york times," there's no women's right in the amendment. there's a first amendment right. and frankly, to have women and assume there's a woman sitting in the finger painting department of hobby lobby who is so upset she can get these other forms of contraception but she can't get the plan b abortion pill should probably worry about getting another job to pay for it. it's not our responsibility for
the woman in the cross stitching section to fund and subsidize her sex life. if it was so important, the administration could figure out another way to get her a check directly. this is the whole feminist myth. this is what they're selling to women. my body, between me and my doctor, unless a bill becomes due, and then i'm not beyonce anymore. i'm oppressed, i'm weak, i'm not a strong woman. it's a terrible message. are women strong or not? >> that means the woman at whole foods who sells tomatoes doesn't have the right, either? hobby lobby because the owners are religious people, and they say they want to impose this -- >> can i point this out? hobby lobby is saying there are two forms of contraception that they disagree with, plan b and the iud, which destroys a baby after there's a conception. that's the difference between that and all -- they're not saying we won't do it because
it's all contraception. they're concerned with those two. >> i don't like the idea of after pills to destroy fetuses either, but it's in the law, and nobody has the right to separate themselves out. >> laws can be challenged. and under -- >> challenge it. >> that's what they're doing. under the religious freedom restoration act, interestingly, hobby lobby says the reason they provide health insurance, which they don't have to do, but the reason they do is because of their christian beliefs, because they want to attract their own employees. this is a very narrow request they're making to the government, which obama administration has been willing to give to others, and the question will be do they have to give it to them? can i point out why the bill was passed in the first place in 1993? you know why the religious freedom restoration act exists? because democrats in congress were mad that the supreme court declined to indorse a religious exemption for the use of pay otey by members of the native american church. now, how the world turns? it comes right back around on
them, and on this particular issue, i think the administration is going to be proven wrong. >> i'm all for that, by the way. i don't think the church was making a profit, do you? >> the tribe? >> yeah. >> it wasn't a question. the point is that the question is can a corporation bring a suit under this act? and that's what they're asking. >> i mean, at this table, i am without question the least religious person here, probably at fox. i don't go to church. i'm not religious, but this bothers me because we're in a world where we hound and mock success stories to placate angry intitleists, and by the way, we have exempted unions and government staffers from the law but not these people and that's because they worship god and not government. if they bowed before the alter of obama, everything would be okay. >> those groups have been exempted from the whole enchulady. >> you're suggesting the whole 16,000 believe what their owners believe? >> you can work anywhere. >> exactly.
you can work somewhere else. >> i imagine they're happy there. >> if you don't like what goes on, you can walk away from your employer, whether it's fox or hobby lobby. >> or pay out of pocket, god forbid. >> even the vatican is pushing back hard on president obama's antipathy for christianity. not my words, the vatican chief justice said that. quote, the policies of the president of the united states have become progressively more hostile towards christian civilization. bob, now here, there you hear from the vatican. obama's policies, hostile. >> i don't tend to use the vatican as my guiding religious force. >> you don't? >> no, because i'm a protestant, not a catholic. >> what does this get back down to? the affordable care act, doesn't it? >> obama's policies. >> it gets down to the mandate on what the request that hobby lobby is making. >> were catholics given a pass?
>> that's the question in front of the court. does a corporation like hobby lobby have the same rights as a nonprofit organization or a religious organization that has asked for and been granted that very exemption by the court. >> don't you think religious organizations, pretty much all believe in the same thing or they wouldn't be working for them? >> what if we had the atheist church of whatever and they believe that. should the government be allowed to tell greg's business what to provide his employees. you don't even need greg. >> of course, they should be able to tell them. >> what happens if they tell a muslim business they need to serve pork? >> they're probably equal in area of burden. i don't think it's a burden for somebody not to have one of 16 choices. i don't think that's a burden. but basically, this is about a business that is minding its own business, and government getting into its business. i don't have any hobbies, anyway, but i hear they have great glitter pens and construction paper and i might start making unicorns.
>> quickly, there are those who say hobby lobby should take the penalty and not provide insurance for their employees. that would cost them $24 million in fees alone, taxes, i guess you would call them, and then the employees wouldn't have insurance. >> what happens if it puts them out of business and the woman who is screaming and yelling doesn't have a job? then she really can't get her birth control and her condoms and whatever else. >> health insurance is an enticement for people who work for them. >> that's what they're -- >> we have to leave it there. >> next, president obama is worried about nukes. get this, he's concerned about a bomb dropping right here at home. details ahead. plus, it could be crazy harry reid's wildest whopper ever. he's blaming republicans for russia's annexication of crimea. has the majority leader become totally unglued? we'll debate that gem next on "the five." hi, are we still on for tomorrow?
tomorrow. quick look at the weather. nice day, beautiful tomorrow. tomorrow is full of promise. we can come back tomorrrow. and we promise to keep it that way. driven to preserve the environment, csx moves a ton of freight nearly 450 miles on one gallon of fuel. what a day. can't wait til tomorrow. ♪
should be touting its military might, our commander in chief went to europe and restated his plans to shrink our forces, in the united states, after two wars we're moving toward a leaner military. today, the president was asked this direct question about the world's perception of america and of him. >> are you concerned that america's influence in the world, your influence in the world, is on the decline? >> i think if the premise of the question is that whenever the united states objects to an action and other countries don't immediately do exactly what we wa want, that that's been the norm, that would pretty much erase most of 20th century history.
the world's always been messy. >> he was also asked if he still thinks his former opponent mitt romney was wrong about russia. >> in the light of recent developments, do you think mitt romney had a point when he said that russia is america's biggest geopolitical foe? >> russia's actions are a problem. they don't pose theber one national security threat to the united states. i continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in manhattan. >> all right, before we get into putin and russia, dana, this looks a little bit more confusing than it does cogent with what the president's plans are. what do you think the message is here? he's touting leaning down the military and explaining that we're throttling back. is this apology tour number two? what do you think the president is trying to do? >> i'm one that gives wide deference to any president as a
commander in chief to set the foreign policy of the united states. i'm willing to lead if i'm persuaded it's the right thing to do. i'm am confused if you look at the series of actions over the last particular years, for me, syria was a big one where i wasability able to understand where he was coming from. it was interesting instead of answering the question whether mitt romney was right in the debate and having a gracious moment to say even a broken watch is right twice a day or something funny, he had to bring up nuclear war in manhattan as a distraction so no one thinks about what he was talking about and we're worried about a nuclear weapon going off in new york city. >> they're both real risks. why can't the president acknowledge beyond the one-dimensional argument. they're both somewhat risks. >> i'll say this, the president may have the abs, but he doesn't have the stomach. this is not a white house. this is a day care center for overgrown children. right now, he's cutting the military, like the captain of
the titanic ordering ice cubes. putin is not in the g-8, like that's going to break his heart. like telling bob he's spanned from spin class. break your heart. >> it does. >> eric, when you look at past presidents, okay, whether you agree with them or not, you can look at fdr with his conference moment, jfk with berlin, reagan at the berlin wall and ended the cold war. they were all doing something specific with these trips. what is the president doing? >> well, i don't know. he's spending a lot of money, number one. he's getting face time, global face time, which he likes. i tell you what he did do there. he continues what he told uz he was going to do in june of 2009, where he was going to scale back the american exceptionalism, the pride in america, and say, look, we're going to scale down our military, which i believe is a mistake. we have talked about this before. i don't know that we need the military boots, the number of
personnel, but we still need the military spending. what? >> nothing, go ahead. >> let me say something else. he also said something -- i don't know if they're going to roll more sound, but he said something very disturbing. a little later on in the answer about whether mitt romney was right or wrong. he said russia is not a super power. russia is a local power, he called them. vlad putin is litsening and he's only 1600 miles away from moscow, listening to president obama saying he's scaling back our military, the united states military, and calls russia a local power. boy, is he asking for trouble. >> bob, how does it benefit the united states to have the president do a tour to say we're cutting down on the military? >> because the audience he had there, all the european nations have put up the money. the united states put up the money and blood and they have been willing to do it. he's saying no more. we're going to have a leaner military, we're going to cut back, and you, whether it's the caucasus, iran, iraq, going into
afghanistan, go all through it, and the united states has paid with money and with blood, and it's time for these people to step forward. the germans said they couldn't do it before because of the treaty they signed after world war ii. that's been abruicated, they're now allowed to do that. it's time for italy, france, england is better, but most of the countries who take advantage of our protection, our protection, our money, to pay their fair share or get out of the way. >> that's right. >> but then we're not in the lead. >> so what? >> they're in their own backyard. >> the reason why they can't shift is because they have shifted all their money to domestic spending, which is what we're doing. >> you can't say that about the germans? >> well, most of europe. that's the point, it comes from a toxic reversal of reality that military supremacy guarantees domestic tranquility. we have a president that sees that in reverse, the idea that community activism means the world won't hurt us. it's a terrifying idea that if we just act cool, everything is
fine. >> the point you made about the american exceptionalism equals military strength is ridiculous. >> what president obama said in 2009 at cairo university, he was apologetic for american exceptionalism. i 100% agree with you that if there's any more issues with russia, with crimea, with ukraine, the european community needs to step up if they expect support from the u.s. if that's what the purpose of the trip was, which i don't believe for one second, if that's the purpose, i agree with you 100%. i think he needs a global stage. >> the great country we built in iraq and the first two people we gave leases to, the chinese and russians, how about they give them to us. >> dana, quickly, you heard the president belittle russia, and then you heard harry reid today in the senate -- you heard harry reid in the senate blame republicans for the annexation of crimea, what are they trying
to do here? republicans, it's the republicans' fault? >> it's another fumble on the legislative side. with the imf reform taken out of the bill, i think they'll get the ukrainian money. on the point about whether the other nations should have more skin in the game, i absolutely believe that's true. we should make them play ball, rather than say we're going to take our ball and go home and good luck to the rest of you. i believe it comes back to hurt us in the future. >> with the message of giving up the internet, it doesn't seem like the message we're giving. >> we're all surrendering and leaving. >> we have to go by what we see. the fact is obama doesn't have a crystal ball, he has a clueless ball. >> next up, harry reid and the liberal media are working overtime to smear the conservative koch brothers. the washington post published a false story on them. will the paper apologize? that's coming up next. (dad) well, we've been thinking about it and we're just not sure.
(agent) i understand. (dad) we've never sold a house before. (agent) i'll walk you guys through every step. (dad) so if we sell, do you think we can swing it? (agent) i have the numbers right here and based on the comps that i've found, the timing is perfect. ...there's a lot of buyers for a house like yours. (dad) that's good to know. (mom) i'm so excited.
it's me. last week, the washington post, a paper, ran a piece that claimed the wig bigaligest leas holders in the oil stands are the evil right wing koch brothers. the whole point was to tie them to the oil sands because we're so much better off paying extortion to the saudis. as a blog points out, the claims were wrong. so do the post writers admit their error? no, they claim that the value of their piece does not dependent on truth but in stirring up
conversation. they said, quote, the power line article itself and its tone is strong evidence that issues surrounding the koch brothers' political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in the election year. that's why we wrote the piece. so you misreported on purpose to get real reporters to expose you as incomitant boobs. congrats. mission accomplished. to defend your ineptitute as a conversation starter, you should be working as a clown at children's birthday parties, not reporting for a major paper, but it won't matter. the post will double down, look for a pulitzer for them. is there a special dan rather category? right before the show, the post responded to a request by one of our producers. they write, we didn't write the piece to stir debate. we wrote the piece because others were using the information to stir debate. we were taking note and providing a broader context.
that's baloney. they started the article, and they're basically running away, distancing themselves from the blog. are these really journ lstzs or advocacy journalists? >> before i was in the white house press office, i was a spokesperson for the white house council on environmental quality. if you're a republican spokesperson in washington, d.c., you've probably gone round and round the mulberry bush at some point about the environmental story. i take their pieces with a grain of salt. i think it was on the merits wrong. the rebuttal had to be longer than the piece they wrote in the first place. >> andrea, if a non-liberal writer made this debate, how quickly would they lash out? >> it's others who used the information. god forbid we would fact check the information. they said they just host the blog, it was weak on its face. what i don't understand is why the progressives are so singularly obsessed with the koch brothers.
these are pro-gay, pro-life, pro-legalization of marijuana. they fund the arts, the sciences. they're trying to cure cancer. they fund the metropolitan museum. they're actually not these crazy right wingers. why they're so obsessed with them, why, bob, do you hate them so much? they sound like republicans that liberals can love. >> they're good for fund-raising. >> they will be more and more, believe me. the post was wrong about this. they used this oil tars in canada. they were wrong. they should have just admitted it. what was right, because we don't have much time, is that the koch brothers and their allies on the right wing and the reason they give -- they probably like the arts and all of the rest of it, but the massive amount of money is going into protecting and creating the right wing, and harry reid was right, the sanctions were held up by right-wing people, a lot of eric's friends, at the behest of the koch brothers to protect
them against -- >> thank god the right wing guys who are only in it for a smaller government, more liberty, more freedom. those bloggers want to stir debate with accuracy, they could go after warren buffett. he's second richest man in the world, but he, in fact, does benefit from the keystone pipeline. he has a substantial stake in burlington railroad, which crude oil, very, very expensively from canada -- the canadian sands all the way down to the refiners in america -- >> but he's not trying to break the law. >> he's not breaking the law. no, bob, he's not breaking the law, but they were accusing the koch brothers of doing something illegal or unethical when the reality is if you really want to apply that same standard, apply it to warren buffett who also isn't breaking the law, but benefits from no keystone pipeline. >> what the koch brothers are doing is trying to cover up all the messes because there were regulations in the bill -- >> they're supporters of president obama everywhere. >> the reason the bill got stuck
before the holiday is because the right wing put up an amendment that would have made the kochs not come under the regulations of the federal election committee. that's what it was about. so they jeopardized the crimea issue over the ridiculous koch brothers. >> i think when they added that imf amendment to it, i think the democrats are the ones who sank the bill. >> the washington post, the bottom line is they did this because they didn't want the pipeline. that harms our national security because it makes us beholden to crazy people. >> i don't understand why they don't like it? >> i don't know, either. coming up, if you have an annoying coworker, help is on the way, dana has a lot of tips. she's the expert. stay tuned for those. [ woman ] i've always tried to see things from the best angle i could. it's how i look at life. especially now that i live with a higher risk of stroke
due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. i was taking warfarin but wondered, could i focus on something better? my doctor told me about eliquis for three important reasons. one, in a clinical trial eliquis was proven to reduce the risk of stroke better than warfarin. two, eliquis had less major bleeding than warfarin. and three, unlike warfarin there's no routine blood testing. [ male announcer ] don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. those three important reasons
are why i'm shooting for something better. eliquis. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor today if eliquis is right for you. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor today predibut, manufacturings a prettin the united states do. means advanced technology. we learned that technology allows us to be craft oriented. there's no beer robot that nhas suddenly chased them out. the technology is actually creating new jobs. siemens designed and built the right tools and resources to get the job done.
who drives you nuts? there's always at least one irritating coworker at the office. what's the best way to deal with them? the glass door just put together six helpful tips maintaining a positive attitude. find common interest to make them more tolerable. try to ignore their flaws. kill them with kindness, politely reject their attention. be assertive, tell them they're a distraction. if they don't get the picture, get your manager to help you. this story was pitched by our producers. they're trying to send a message to us or to one another. bob, do you have any annoying colleagues? >> yes. >> yeah, which ones? do you want to name them? >> today, i could count four, easily, pretty annoying. i think this idea -- some of these are pretty good ideas about trying to keep a positive attitude. in the case of greg, you try to ignore his flaws. i try to do that all the time.
and politely reject their attention, i do that with eric a lot. be assertive, i do it with you when you start scowling at me. yeah, so these are pretty worthwhile. >> how do you handle me? >> i don't, baby. >> one of the things on the list is you try to kill people with ki kindness. i notice you do that a lot? >> kindness is a rifle. you know, i think these are the worst tips ever. i think -- >> i didn't think they were very good. >> they're inviting conflict. you have -- okay, first off, it's a great problem to have. there are a lot of people who don't have this problem because they don't have jobs. if you have an annoying employee, employer, coworker, that's great. having said that, avoid eye contact. when someone enters the room, find something to do. look over here, i think there's some printer paper that needs shuffling, and then you walk away. oh, the blackberry. >> best way -- i'm sorry. >> this is the way out for
everything. it's like being in a subway train. it's the same thing. except less smelly. >> not that you have to get along. one of the things i do agree with is if you work with somebody who is nigative, it can bring the whole place down. >> oh, shut up. >> would you be speaking of somebody whose name rhymes with megmuttfelt. i try to focus on greg's positives. greg is more the sullen, negative guy, but i think he has a lot of other great qualities. like bob, for example, he can get grumpy, and you get on my nevers, but i focus on what a good person you are and a good friend. >> there's another thing that happened to eric. remember the space heater problem? >> oh, yeah. >> in the cubicle. >> yeah. remember? i remember it every day. julie works for gasparino, producer, she has a heater under her desk, but all the heat comes under my desk. by 3:00 in the afternoon -- >> that's why you're so hot. >> what do i do? i don't mention it.
>> they don't straighten it out, don't change their ways, it's really annoying, you mug them outside. >> you have one of the best, best theories on the planet. if something is bothering you, get it off your chest right away. >> i have one other thing. colleagues, if you have a bathroom that is shared between men and women, men, you still have to put the seat down. not that that happens or anything. >> if you hear a clicking noise, it's not a camera. >> what is this about putting the seat down? why do we have to put the seats down? you put the seat up. >> flight 370 went down in the ocean, but one u.s. lawmaker is challenging that declaration. you'll hear from him next. every second, we chip away. at advancing safety with technology, like seeing every curve, even when you don't,
who picked that song? yesterday, without producing evidence of any wreckage, the malaysian government unequivocally announced flight 370 had crashed in the southern indian ocean with no survivors. can we trust the malaysian authorities that have botched the investigation throughout? representative peter king thinks not. >> well, from day one, megyn,
the conduct and the tactics of the malaysian government have been inept, and in many ways disgraceful and inexcusable. in no way is our government saying this is definitive. i don't know what could have justified the prime minister doing that, other than to deflect the criticism he's getting from the families and the chinese and all over the world. >> families are upset at the malaysian authorities and are lashing out. >> all right, eric, good question. we followed this thing for weeks and the malaysians have not distinguished themselves with facts, and all of a sudden they get definitive in one day, why? >> there's no explanation whatsoever, other than possibly for the first time in history, i agree with peter king on one
thing, the malaysian government and malaysian airlines have decided they don't want the scrutiny, the public eye, the responsibility anymore. i don't know, and like i said yesterday, we all said yesterday, the families must be absolutely outraged and we're seeing it right now. they ought to be ticked off. >> you think the world press is going to leave it alone because the malaysians say it's over? >> i think it will take a while for the investigative reporters to try to work to see what they can find out. when we get more information from our own fbi, after looking at the simulator, i think that will maybe at least be another piece to help us solve the puzzle. >> your brother, you have talked to him a lot. has he heard -- what does he think about what the malaysians are saying? >> he doesn't believe you can trust anything they're saying. even if they try to get it off the front pages, which is the singular thing they want to do, it still doesn't explain why that plane went down in that area. even if they're saying, yep, that's the plane, they still have to answer the question, why
is the plane down there? it's so far from the direction it was supposed to be going. a lot, a lot of questions. >> greg, if it gets to the point in another two or three weeks and countries decide we're not going to spend the money anymore to look, it's going to be a tough call, but at some point, you can't keep going, can you? >> that's true, but this is an issue. we live in an age where it could be your family. planes are now weapons. it's imperative that our government doesn't just get the easy answer, but they get the right answer. we can't stop thinking about it. >> what if we don't get the right answer, what if there isn't an answer? >> that's possible, but i just don't believe them. >> we shouldn't settle for that. okay, but it might take patience. i also think an interesting thing about greece is that there's a universal connection that we have with people that speak a lot of different languages and we do, all over the world, and that is we do think we can understand and empathize with people in this case, and i hope they're
comforted in knowing the americans are on their side. >> don't forget, the malaysian government said they would have more information for us today. >> nothing. >> "one more thing" is up next. with at&t's new pricing for families you get 4 lines on at&t's network... including unlimited talk unlimited text ...and 10 gigs of data to share. 10 gigs? 10 gigs. all for $160 dollars a month. you know, i think our family really needed this. it's really gonna bring us closer together. yep. yep. yep. yep. yep. yep. introducing our best-ever family pricing for instance, a family of four gets 10 gigs of data with unlimited talk and text for 160 dollars a month. only from at&t.
the book stores. you can find out where i'm going to be at on ggutfeld.com. dana and i will be at the george w. bush library and we're going to do a talk and then hit all these places. i was supposed to come back on monday, but my mother is not doing well, so i'm going to spend extra time with her in california. and i should be back in a week or so. she's the inspiration for all i do. the books that i write are dedicated to her, and anyway, so i'm going to see her. >> ggutfeld.com. >> we talked about president obama and brussels. these are unbelievable numbers. 900 people in his entourage. 45 vehicles, three cargo planes. mark does this, can you tell us how much this is going to cost the american taxpayer. does he really need 900 people? i'm not sure. >> someone has to carry the bags. all right, i wanted to talk
about a friend and mentor of mine, harold bursen. he's 92 years old now. the founder of a global pr firm, and i worked there for a short period of time. we remained friends. we donated 68 years to the day after he began reporting on the nuremberg trial, he did every report for two years for the armed forces network, the radio station that went out to our military, and he donated it to the u.s. holocaust memorial museum, and you can actually hear him read about it at audible.com. it's really important to history, and harold is a great guy. had dinner with him last night. he was my date. >> very good. you're up. >> this is the white board for greg's not cool tour. texas or bust. 900 entourage. 45 vehicles, three cargo planes. that's not cool. >> someone has to carry the bags. >> okay, if you thought that it couldn't get any better than money shooting out of an atm,
guess what? now cupcakes are shooting utof a atms all over america. they're in dallas, atlanta, and chicago. it's charles nelson and his wife, who have founded sprinkles cupcakes, which are delicious, are putting the atms where you can get ten different kinds of cupcakes, even in the middle of the night, and they even have doggy cupcakes. >> my wife said that was the best idea she has had in a long time. >> shoes would be the other. >> bob, you're up. >> i want to report on the great state of oklahoma. i have been in oklahoma, some of the longest hours i have spent were in oklahoma. and they're nice people, wonderful people. but katie francis of oklahoma city, won the girl scout award for the most number of boxes of cookies that could be sold and girl scout cookies. 18,107. if you're in oklahoma, you have the kind of time to sell that many boxes, and you took advantage of the time. that's what our executive
producer does, takes the time to bust my chops. >> don't forget to set your dvrs so you don't miss an episode of "the five." next, "special report." welcome to the national security agency. ft. mead, maryland, about 20 miles outside washington, d.c. there are more than 50 buildings on this sprawling campus, a place under the tightest security imagine nl. for a long time, nsa stood for no such agency, or never say anything. a lot of what happens here was never talked about, until recently. welcome to "special report." a special edition tonight, bringing you an exclusive look behind the scenes at the national security agency. we're coming to you tonight from the director's office, and joining us now, the 16th nsa director, general keith alexander, a man